<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1a3zpmn53lhv8jv7vjg3daletu2e6e9ce88737ga2r7dkr7yc7dss7r6s85</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1a3zpmn53lhv8jv7vjg3daletu2e6e9ce88737ga2r7dkr7yc7dss7r6s85</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2016-05-11&#xA;📝 Original message:On 05/11/2016 02:01 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:&#xA;&gt; Indeed, I think the &#34;ASICs are bad, because 1-CPU-1-vote&#34; arguments&#xA;&gt; mostly died out long ago, and, indeed, the goal that many making those&#xA;&gt; arguments had of building &#34;unoptimizeable&#34; ASICs failed with them.&#xA;&#xA;Discussion quietened down but never went away.  With centralization of&#xA;mining in China, the topic is up for discussion again.  For example,&#xA;Z.Cash will now use Equihash as their proof-of-work scheme.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; giving one&#xA;&gt; manufacturer/licenser a huge influence in who is successful in a market&#xA;&gt; that we&#39;re all relying on remaining rather flat.&#xA;&#xA;Central planning is a slippery slope.  Let the market decide the winners&#xA;and losers.  It&#39;s not feasible to hard fork every time an innovation or&#xA;perceived unfair advantage appears in the space.&#xA;&#xA;--Simon</html></oembed>